Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
That's why I quit posting in here weeks ago. If you're opinion differs from the writers, then they and their fans gets nasty. It almost makes you think that one has to kiss some major ass just to get along in this forum.
That is patently false. If you give some sort of reason why you don't like a story, then the author(s) will accept the criticism and move on. It's only when posters get nasty or just say they hate something with no explanation that there is a problem.
As an example, I posted a not-so-favorable review of Progress in the SCE thread, but neither Terri nor Keith got nasty. Like anywhere else, opinions delivered with courtesy go further than nonsensical diatribes.
Smiley said:
That is patently false. If you give some sort of reason why you don't like a story, then the author(s) will accept the criticism and move on. It's only when posters get nasty or just say they hate something with no explanation that there is a problem.
As an example, I posted a not-so-favorable review of Progress in the SCE thread, but neither Terri nor Keith got nasty. Like anywhere else, opinions delivered with courtesy go further than nonsensical diatribes.
No, it's patently false as you see it. I see it a diffrent way and evidently others do to. And why should the people here get courtesy when they don't give it themselves?
This isn't the place to debate this any longer as I responded to a post after the moderator handled it. But I still hold to my opinion of this forum and won't waste my time with it after this post.
Smiley said:
That is patently false. If you give some sort of reason why you don't like a story, then the author(s) will accept the criticism and move on. It's only when posters get nasty or just say they hate something with no explanation that there is a problem.
As an example, I posted a not-so-favorable review of Progress in the SCE thread, but neither Terri nor Keith got nasty. Like anywhere else, opinions delivered with courtesy go further than nonsensical diatribes.
No, it's patently false as you see it. I see it a diffrent way and evidently others do to. And why should the people here get courtesy when they don't give it themselves?
This isn't the place to debate this any longer as I responded to a post after the moderator handled it. But I still hold to my opinion of this forum and won't waste my time with it after this post.
Not to be unkind, but it seems to me that you're allowing a small collection of bad experiences paint your view of the overall situation. Unfortunately, there are a few touchy subjects here and if you don't have a substantial defense beyond "I hate it" then people do react poorly in those cases. All I can ask of you is to keep reading, if nothing else, and if you feel comfortable, post your thoughts no matter what they are. And keep doing it. You'll find in the long run that this is a fun place to hang out. There's just a few sticky spots. But what forum doesn't?
Oops, here I go blowing it by switching topics after I don't do it again. I guess I just wanted to defend the forum one last time.
Back during the TNG-era, I used to read as many Trek books as I could during school vacations, and I remember the books from that period as being fairly hit-or-miss, but I was very young back then. It's only been in the last year or so that I've begun to get back into the Trek-lit, and I've enjoyed most of the books that I've read recently: I'm half-way through the ATT series, just beginning the DS9-relaunch, and I've picked up a number of other books that looked interesting to me.
So while my picks for worst Trek books are probably far from the bottom of the barrel, they are the ones that have not met my expectations:
1) Triangle: Imzadi II The first Imzadi book is far and away my all-time favorite Trek book. This one had much less emotional resonance for me, and too much emphasis on the Romulans' schemes.
2) Death in Winter I hadn't heard anything about this book until I saw it in a bookstore this past fall. I was thrilled by the book description. It started out strong, but, once again, too many pages were devoted to the Romulans and
Picard's rescue of Beverly seemed poorly executed to me.
3) Section 31: Rogue My reasons for listing this book have nothing to do with the controversy earlier in this thread, on the contrary I was very interested in reading more about Lt. Hawk. Unfortunately, I purchased this book last summer and have not made it through more than the first third of the text. I've just found it boring so far. I'd be interested in recommendations from those of you who have read this one - does it get better? Should I try to get through it again?
I concur that you should give Rogue another try. It's one of my favorite books, largely because of the reunion Picard has with his two Academy buddies.
I've remembered a couple of other books I didn't like: A Time Be Born & A Time to Die by John Vornholt. Actually, it's mostly the second book I had a problem with. While it was good to have Wesley back (I'm one of those few people who didn't mind the character), but I hated how he wowed Picard's female counselor within five minutes. She was interesting character to their meeting and I enjoyed Picard's conversations with her, but after meeting Wesley turned into a flimsy one-dimensional character who would follow Wesley to her death.
Piper, I'm glad you're giving the forum a second chance.
i hate the entropy effect. i found it hideously dull and i think i am hampered by reading it at a point where it's obvious kirk's somehow going to survive and i found the technobabble dull. i did like the new security guards though.
i hate best destiny. kirk is such a bratty a'hole i found him unlikeable. it's got major continuity errors - even going from TOS alone- and the story's frankly boring.
i nearly fell asleep reading New Earth: Wagon Train to the Stars
i didn't much like the red king. i couldn't get interested in the lost human tribe. i had to hang on by waiting for the romulan and klinigon bits and the titan crew stuff.
taking wing was good, aside from the fact that i thought keru was a whiny bastard. i just wished he could get over hawk already. it wasn't him being gay it was him constantly harping on about hawk dying and blaming worf. and i just KNEW that his leave-no-man-behind attitude would come back and bite him in the ass. he was much better in orion's hounds though.
age of unreason in the SCE was boring and weird. no surrender felt as though it was too rushed. not enough was done with gold's old pal and his story.
I just finished reading Section 31: Cloak this weekend and I rather enjoyed it except for the part about McCoy and his disease. It seems forced and to me only a plot device to help figure out a prot of the problem in themain storyline. And the McCory part of the story was ended with a one or two line mention in the last chapter.
^ That was a tie-in to an existing TOS episode: "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky." Most of the book takes place right before that episode, with the epilogue taking place after it.
Piper said:
To answer the question should you try to get through Rogue again? Yes! This book totally rocks with action and is a great companion to First Contact.
Can't argue with that It does take a while for the story to get going, but from the midpoint onwards it gets interesting and tense pretty quickly. So I'd recommend you persevere, as it's well worth seeing through to the end.
I titled my Amazon review of Richard Belzer's book about conspiracies (where he also mentions the one that the moon is hollow and is the staging ground for aliens as well as the whole JFK thing) as:
For the Moon is Hollow and I have Torched This Guy
Oooh, MAN...! That's the one where the author has Spock pursuing a career as a Shakespearean actor or something, right? As I recall, it's littered with typos and continuity mistakes, as well (and by that I mean characters change rank several times within a page, not "hey, McCoy's middle initial is H, not E").
Wow. I'd forgotten all about how much I HATED this book...
As I recall, it's littered with typos and continuity mistakes, as well (and by that I mean characters change rank several times within a page, not "hey, McCoy's middle initial is H, not E").
